Civil Liberties and Rights Flashcards
McCulloh v Maryland? What happened?
Congress proposed the second national bank of the U.S. in 1816, James Madison approved the charter, however, the states did not. MAryland started taxing the bank because it was on their soil, they refused, and Maryland sued McCulloch.
Why did the states disapprove of the (first and) second national bank?
- The national bank competed with their own
-There was no single currency in the U.S. at the time - - Didn’t like the bank managers (saw em’ corrupt)
-They felt the federal government was overstepping its bounds by making the states r=print more money than they could redeem. *
What were the constitutional questions of McCulloch V. Maryland
- Is the commission of a national bank within Congress’ powers implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause?
- Do states have the authority to tax a branch of national bank within its borders
What was holding McCulloch v Maryland
Unanimous decision that congress had the power to create a national bank, and Maryland’s taxation was unconstitutional.
Civil Liberties
fundamental rights that protect people from government infringement
- specifically unreasonable government restriction of your liberties
“protections Against government action”
What was the majority opinions’ reasoning for Mcculloch v Maryland
Chief Justice Marshall (ou marshall court) says that the
- Necessary and Proper Clause supports a national bank as an essential creation and addition to Congress’ ability to carry out their enumerated powers
- Although states have the concurrent power of taxation, they cannot tax the national bank because it is under federal law and according to the Supremacy Clause, the states cannot control it because it is supreme.
United States V. Lopez. what happened?
Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought a gun to sell at school, and he was charged by the state, state charges were dropped and he was federally charged with violating Free School Zones Act.
Lopez took his case all the qY to U.S. court of appeals (they agreed with him)
-the U.S. testified
Majority opinion and holding of U.S. V Lopez
The possession of guns is not economic activity that falls under the regulation in the commerce clause. (holding)
- The government’s explanation that guns= bad economy because business dont like crime, could mean that any activity was commercial and open for federal regulation, with nothing left to the states.
- 10th amendment creates a federal system which protects state power
Constitutional questions of US V Lopez,
Is the 1990 gun free school zones act unconstitutional?
Are activities within K-12 related to interstate commerce?
Civil Rights
government protections from discrimination as members of particular groups, such as minorities
“Protections provided by government action”
Before the Bill of Rights…
states had their own variations, which often lacked the fundamental rights included now
- such as freedom from religious persecution
- freedom from having religious qualifications to hold office
Bill of Rights
A 1-10 that are a list of fundamental rights and freedoms that individuals possess
Who originally wanted a Bill of Rights?
- Antifeds
- said that citizens need protection from the continuous growth of centralized power
- A.F raised public concern through Brutus propaganda, which brought about the list
How many B.O.R were originally proposed
- 10 were ratified
What was H___ argument about the B.O.R.
- Hamilton; They were unnecessary because people were sovereign under the constitution (also James Madison’ argument) // the government’s job were to secure individual rights
- B.O.R. was dangerous because the list would be incomplete either way. Those in power would deny rights not expressly put (not now though)
The first amendment gurantees that..
CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW.. restrictive of speech, assembly, petition, religion, and press.
Selective incorportation uses…
the 14th amendment “due process” clause to expand the protections within B.O.R. to also cover state laws and actions… on a case by case basis.
What are the two (important) clauses found in the first amendment
Establishment and Free Exercise
Wisconsin v Yoder background info
-The Amish wished to take their children out of the state’s education system after 8th grade, because of their belief system. Wisconsin law prohibits them from doing so.
Constitutional Question in Wisconsin v yoder
- does Wisconsin’s requirement of school til’ 16 violate the First Amendment’s free exercise clause by criminalizing parents who take their children out for religious reasons ?
Holding Wisconsin v yoder
7-2 decision; Free Exercise clause outweighs Wisconsin law, only in the case of an established religion
Majority opinion Wisconsin v yoder
- Amish have an established way of life that conflicts with Wisconsin’s rule to keep kids in school until 16 because after 8th grade is a vital time for amish kids
Majority opinion Wisconsin v yoder
- Amish have an established way of life that conflicts with Wisconsin’s rule to keep kids in school until 16 because after 8th grade is a vital time for amish kids
Dissent Opinion W v Y
Douglass; this matter should not be just decided by the parents, but by the children as well
Employment Division v smith and W v Yoder
Although both cases raise the common extend of a state’s ability to regulate free exercise; in ED v Smith, the state’s banning of peyote was not targeted toward any religious group even though it restricted religious practices, thus it was not a violation of the constituents under the first amendment. States proposed a compelling interest.
significance of w v yoder
individual liberty to worship their established religion freely outweighs a state’s interest in making kids attend school
Engel V Vitale background
–students in New York would have the option to say a nondenominational class prayer
- although optional, would a student still do it because others are. Jumping the bandwagon
Engel v vitale constitutional question
does school recitation of prayer violate the establishement clause
Engel v vitale holding
6-1 decision in favor of parents// yes school prayer is unconstitutional no matter if its nondenominational or not
Majority opinion E v Vitale
- the government is made to represent the people, thus should not sponsor any religion
-When a government establishes religion, it results in the hatred, disrespect, and contempt of those who hold contrary beliefs.
Dissent E v V
The establishment clause is only to prevent the state from sponsoring a church, such as the Church of England. The establishment clause does not limit government involvement in religion
significance engale V Vitale
- The case established that the he government is to refrain from sponsoring one belief because the American people hold a variety of different ones, and the government is supposed to represent the people
- Westside Community Schools v. Mergers: explored the boundaries of the establishment protections and free exercise protections. school cannot prohibit “religious clubs” led by students at schools (students have Free Exercise of religion and Equal Access Act)
There are national guidelines by the U.S. Department of Education that protect…
The Free Exercise of students’ religion during non-instructional time
According to the establishment clause, teacher and administrators…
In public schools, may not encourage or discourage prayer in their official capacity, but may participate in religious activities when not in official spaces (like clubs).
What is the three-pronged test that sets guidelines for what is permissible under the establishment clause?
- Lemon Test
1. The state’s statue prohibiting exercise must have a secular legislative purpose
2. State law cannot advance or inhibit religion
3. Cannot foster excessive entanglement between government and religion
The first two clauses in the First Amendment to the Constitution both..
involve religion
prevent the federal government from establishing or favoring a religion
protect Americans’ rights to exercise their religious freedoms.
Clear and present danger test
- legal standard that evaluates political speech legitimacy. Says that any speech posing an immediate and serious threat to national security is not protected by the 1st amendment
- overturned by brandenburg test
Schenck v US background and constitutional question
- Charles Schenck distributed leaflets against the U.S. Draft, and urged the public to disobey the draft through peaceful action
-Does Schenck’s conviction under the Espionage act violate his first amendment right to free speech?
Schenck holding and significance
unanimous decisions saying: courts hold deference to the government during wartime, even if constitutional rights were at stake. Schenck’s leaflets disrupts the conscription process because he was not merely protesting against the draft protest, he was encouraging men to avoid the war thus making congress’ job harder
-significance= clear and present danger test which creates a standard that 1st amendment does not protect speech that could lead others to danger.
Significance of McColloch v MAryland
demonstrates the balance of power between the states and government where the scale is tipped towards the national government.
QU.S. V Lopez signifcance
demonstrates the balance of power between state and federal government where the scales are tipped toward the states
Prior Restraint
the suppression of material prior to publication on the grounds that the publication endangers national security
New York Times V U.S. : What happened and what was the constitutional question
- Nixon administration tried to prevent NYT and WP from publishing classified materials covering decisionmaking of the Vietnam War (Pentagon Papers)
- Did Nixon’s effort to use prior restraint violate the first amendment protection of freedom of the press?
NYT vs the United States holding and significance
6-3 majority favor of the NYT saying the government only wanted to protect it’s embarrassing actions. Most notably signifying that the press was created to inform the people which is essential to democracy, and since the publication would not endanger American forces, prior restraint is unjustified
- This holding of this case is significant because it created a very high standard to which constitutes government censorship of the newspaper
Symbolic speech
protected expression in the form of images, signs, and other symbols
Tinker v Des. Moines Independent Community School District: what happened and what are the constitutional questions?
- Students wished to silently protest their support for a truce in Vietnam war by wearing arm-bands, Their school created a policy when they found out saying that anyone with an arm band would be suspended
- Does the prohibition of wearing armbands as a form of symbolic speech violate the 1st amendment free speech?
Tinker V Des Moines: what was the holding and significance
7-2 in favor of tinker, the majority saying that students retain their constitutional freedom of speech while in public school. The students were not causing disruption by wearing the arm bands
- set the parameters for the question of free speech in schools, where there is still a balance between a student’s right to free speech and the school’s responsibility to create a safe and conflict-free environment.
- For example, Bethel v Fraser: vulgar speech is not free speech
Defamation:
Speech that hurts a person’s reputation.
-Libel (l)
-Slander (s)
McDonald V. Chicago: what happened and what was constitutional question
- Chicago’s handgun policy required citizens to register their handguns with the city, but due to the complexity of the registration process Chicago residents were effectively banned from possessing handguns. In 2008 after the court decided Heller, Otis McDonald and other Chicago citizens sued the city of Chicago claiming that the 14th amendment protected the citizens 2nd amendment right from the state and local governments
- does the second amendment apply to states and local government through the 14th amendment?
Significance McDonald V Chicago
- In this case, the supreme court overrides state ability to prohibit the liberty of owning firearms, but still allows them to place reasonable restrictions on them
Gideon v Wainwright constitutional question and significance
- does the sixth amendment right to counsel extend to defendants in state court
- This case adds the sixth amendment to be incorporated to the states through selective incorporation under 14th amendment. This was a case did not mandate an attorney in civil cases
Dobbs Constitutional question
- Is Missouri’s law restricting nearly all abortions occurring pas the 15 week gestational period unconstitutional.
How does Tynker v Demoines differ from Morse v Frederick
Although it upholds the same constitutional question of what speech is allowed in schools, Tynker’s case presented political speech, while Frederick presented speech that was not appropriate for the place he was in, being a school sponsored event.
How does Tynker v Demoines differ from Morse v Frederick
Although it upholds the same constitutional question of what speech is allowed in schools, Tynker’s case presented political speech, while Frederick presented speech that was not appropriate for the place he was in, being a school sponsored event.
